No Nukes in Nanticoke - Yippee!!

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, OL' JB ain't been doin' too much boogin' lately on accounta I been busy fightin' a bigass nuclear war down here in Nanticoke. Now, I ain't gonna say we won the war but I'm sayin' the other guys lost. Leastwise, they turned tail an' run away. Good riddance, sez I.

Bruce Power abandoned its proposal to build a new nuke plant in Nanticoke. -- Public opposition was mounting. -- The estimated price tag went from $7 billion last November to $10-$15 this May. -- Nuke investors have been walking away from proposals all over the place.

According to our MPP, 76% of folks down this way were opposed to the plant. The Ontario government said it wasn't going to buy any electricity from the dumbasses. Bruce was probbly hoping to sell the power to the Merkans. If that happened, the Merkans'd get the power; the fatcats'd get the profits; and Nanticoke'd get to store tonnes of deadly radioactive waste for a few hundred thousand years.

Over in Port Dover, they're dancin' in the streets an' gatherin' up some driftwood for a bigass bonfire on the beach.(My ol' Grannie was a Dover girl, born in 1894. I reckon she and/or some of her sisters might be in this here pitcher. I'll ask my Mum if she recognizes anyone.)

In Port Dover, they don't mince words:

Three Mile Island - People Died

Whooee! Well, friends an' foes, this is the 30 year anniversary of North America's worst nuclear accident: Three Mile Island. True to form for nuke incidents, we've been kept in the dark concerning the actual scope of the disaster.

Robert, over at Blast Furnace Blog, had a piece on TMI and I left a bigass comment. I'm recycling that comment here.

We're only just learning about the cover-ups at TMI.

People died.

Also:
In 1983, Metropolitan Edison was busted for falsifying documents related to the accident and reactor safety. They pled guilty to six, and no contest to one, of the 11-count indictment.

(The) thousands of people who received the same dose as an x-ray included pregnant women and children under the age of five. Pregnant women, fetuses and young children are more easily damaged by small doses of radiation. Acceptable doses are based on "reference man" -- a 20-30 YO Caucasian male.

Until we have a permanent, safe, passively secure site for storing spent fuel, we sure as hell shouldn't be adding to the stockpile.

While (Robert's) assertion that CANDUs are safer than other types is arguable, AECL has abandoned the old heavy water CANDU and is promoting the ACR 1000, a EPR (Generation 3) type reactor. All 3 of the reactor designs shortlisted for Ontario are EPR types.

In the past couple weeks, the Oxford Research Group, UK think tank, released a study for the Institute for Public Policy Research. They warn that these third generation (EPR) reactors, like the three models on OPG's shortlist for Ontario and Bruce Power's shortlist for Nanticoke, pose proliferation risks that could lead to “nuclear anarchy.” The report notes that the new type of reactor produces high grade plutonium as a by-product. Plutonium is used to make the most efficient nuclear weapons.

It's been nearly 60 years since the "Atoms for Peace" campaign started promoting nuclear electricity generation. Back then, the scientists were heady from successes like the Manhattan Project. They saw the problem of spent fuels but were understandably confident the problem would be solved quickly. After all , the world's best minds were working on a solution. After 60 years, the best they came up with was Yucca Mountain and that has just been kiboshed by Obama after 20 years work and $11 Billion thrown down the drain.

Reprocessing doesn't work either. A reprocessing plant in West Valley, NY, just across Lake Erie must be decommissioned at taxpayer expense. The operator went broke. NY State taxpayers are looking at a $27 billion estimate to decontaminate the site. Remember though, nuke projects typically come in at least 50% over budget.

Why on earth would any sensible person even consider a technology that leaves behind waste that must be guarded by paramilitary swat teams for 250,000 years?

Here's picture from Bruce Power bragging about their security team. The stuff they're guarding will need to be guarded for more than 100,000 years. Who's going to be responsible for securing the waste we're creating today? What right do we have to burden future generations and civilizations with the toxic legacy of our wasteful lifestyles?

JimBobby

People be Damned. There's Money to be Made.

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I just left a comment over to Excited Delerium. The excited blogger posted up a dandy piece on nuclear power. Here's a bit of it:

Nuclear power is an incredible waste of taxpayer’s money.

Rarely have we seen the full promised potential of nuclear power, the cost overruns have always been well beyond anyone’s wildest imagination and the risks of dealing with waste greatly outweigh any described benefits of nuclear power.

However, it’s very likely that the McGuinty government in Ontario will sign agreements in the spring of 2009 to bring on 2 new nuclear power plants in this province.

...

Please petition / attend meetings / write Smitherman and do what it takes to encourage our provincial leaders to spend $50-60 billion on renewable power generation.

Start here and spread the word .

Yeow! Nuthin' delirious about that, sez I.

I'm a lazyass recycler so I'm re-postin' my comment here.

Here's another source of nuke info: www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca.

Down here on Lake Erie, we got Bruce Power pushin' to build a new nuke plant in Nanticoke. They contend that since they are a private company, stuff like cost overruns and delays are not the public's problem. They been winin' an' dinin' the local gummints an' got the endorsements they was lookin' for. They been spendin' hunnerts of thousands on advertisin' in all the local papers and radio stations. They been holdin' public information (propaganda) sessions where they been puttin' out deluxe buffet dinners for the rubes.

The local folks got a petition goin' against the plant. The local county gummints have refused to hear delegations from anti-nuke citizens' groups but have been more than willing to allow Bruce's paid liars to present fabrications and exaggerations to councils. Councils are interested in jobs an' tax revenue. They have shown that they don't give a rat's ass for public health and safety.

Bruce got its Environmental Assessment officially started in November. They're steamrollin' and the only thing that's gonna stop 'em is public opposition. The Mayors and councillors never did any sorta public opinion gathering before endorsing the proposal. "People be damned; there's money to be made."

This Nanticoke location will put the entire golden horseshoe in jeopardy... all for 1000 jobs and the continued ability to waste energy at will. Our great-grandchildren will curse us in our graves. Our great-grandchildrens' great-grandchildren, too.

JimBobby

Anti-Nuke Action for Nanticoke

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, down here in Norfolk and Haldimand Counties, Bruce Power is doin' its dangedest to build a new nuclear power plant. Ginty sez he's shuttin' down Nanticoke's filth-belchin' coal-fired plant by 2014. Bruce is ridin' in on a white horse an' promisin' a thousand jobs an' billions of dollars of investment in the local economy.

Both Bruce Power and the province have stated that they will only build nuclear plants in "willing host" communities. Both Haldimand and Norfolk County Councils have adopted resolutions declaring that we have a willing host community. Diane Finley's been actively working with Bruce Power, too.

There's just one big problem. Nobody has ever asked the local residents if they are in favour of a nuke plant here. Well, almost nobody. Bruce Power commissioned an Ipsos poll a couple years ago that asked if residents were in favour of exploring the possibility. As I recall, only about 1200-1500 people were polled and the poll was not an impartial poll commissioned by any branch of government but a poll commissioned by Bruce specifically to prove there is local support. There's something like 78,000 people on the voters' list in the two counties so a company-commissioned poll of 1500 doesn't cut much shit with me and it shouldn't cut much with our county gummints, neither.

I'm on a mailing list of a group that's been asking questions and publishing information about nuclear energy and the problems associated with it. The group is called Grand Erie Energy Quest. They been putting lotsa stuff on their website: www.energyquest4nanticoke.ca.

Well, things been movin' dang fast lately. Bruce Power's been makin' bigass announcements and putting full-page newspaper ads in every paper that serves the riding. They been sending out slick literature in the mail. They been makin' donations to local outfits like the Norfolk County Fair, Norfolk General Hospital and the Port Dover Medical Centre. They're describing the proposed project as a "clean energy hub." They say it's a combination of nuclear, wind, solar and hydrogen initiatives.

Greenwashing, sez I!

Well, the folks at Grand Erie Energy Quest (I'll call 'em GEEQs) have got themselves a petition and they're lookin' fer signatures. The issue goes beyond the boundaries of Haldimand and Norfolk. Hamilton and Niagara are in the Nanticoke air shed. Any accident at a new nuke plant in Nanticoke would affect millions of people in the Golden Horseshoe. I reckon anybody who wants can sign the GEEQ's petition.

Here's what the petition sez:

To: Norfolk County Council, Haldimand County Council, Legislature of Ontario, the Honourable Diane Finley and the Honourable Toby Barrett.

Without any formal public consultation, County Councils in both Haldimand and Norfolk have unanimously endorsed the first step in building two nuclear reactors.

The nuclear power industry has failed to address public concern over the issues of safety and security in the storage and handling of hazardous radioactive spent fuel.

Nuclear power is not emissions-free with its pollution intensive activities in uranium mining, transportation and refining.

No nuclear project has ever come in on budget or on time with the taxpayer and the utility customer paying for cost overruns that typically range in the billions of dollars.

We, the undersigned citizens, demand a complete moratorium on nuclear development until the issues of contamination, costs, security, and public consultation are adequately addressed.

You can download the petition from the GEEQ website. I've downloaded and printed a few copies and I don't reckon I'll have much trouble findin' signatures. Even though our local councils have told everyone we're a willing host, I been havin' a hard time findin' anybuddy who's in favour of this dumbass idea.

JimBobby

NUCLEAR POWER SPEEDING UP GLOBAL WARMING

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, I'm on a email mailin' list where I get info about nuclear power an' alternative energy an' that sorta stuff. I got one today that was written by a good ol' boy name o' Ziggy Kleinau. I seen ol' Ziggy speak at a meetin' over in Jarvis a coupla few months back where they was talkin' about puttin' a nuke plant here in Nanticoke. Ziggy's been livin' off the grid fer somethin' like 12 years. I don't think he has a boog so I'm gonna share what he had to say to the email list.

NUCLEAR POWER SPEEDING UP GLOBAL WARMING.

Much has been made of the power contained in a single uranium fuel bundle used in Ontario’s CanDU reactors to produce electricity.

It is supposed to be able to generate as much electricity as 380 tonnes of coal or 1,800 barrels of oil (Canadian Nuclear Association website "Nuclear Facts").

Compared to the burning of fossil fuels to produce the steam to generate electric power the fuel bundle undergoes a fission process, splitting the uranium atoms to produce heat to fabricate the steam to drive turbines connected to the generators in a complicated process of electricity generation.

Matter-of-fact so much heat is produced by the fission-activated neutrons that – to keep the fuel from uncontrolled meltdown – there need to be huge amounts of cooling water drawn from Lakes Huron and Ontario.

The 6 operating Bruce Power reactors, by the way, are drawing close to 17 million litres of lake water A MINUTE( ! !) to keep the process from overheating (Golder Associates Ltd. Consultants).

What happens to this cooling water? Most of it is discharged back to the lake, but not in the same condition – it goes back out up to 12 degrees Celsius warmer! This so-called thermal plume has been heating up the Lakes for decades, 24/7, 365 days a year.

Very little ice has been forming on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay over successive, even colder, winters, resulting in lake water evaporation over the full 12 months instead of the normal 8 months of ice-free water. Without ice cover solar irradiation will also have the effect of additional warming of the open waters, while ice cover would have reflected the sun’s rays!

No wonder lake levels continue to drop, now at record low levels, affecting the economy of shipping companies and marinas, with waters getting warmer, resulting in increased evaporation and cloud forming.

That powerful fuel bundle – and there are 5760 of them in each reactor – can remain productive for just over 12 months, at which time it has to be removed BY REMOTE CONTROL because the fission has made it so highly radioactive that it would kill a person, standing as close as 3 metres, instantly.

When it is removed it still contains over 99% of potential energy,"but to extract it out costs a lot more than just to take it out and put it under water" (Jeremy Whitlock, past President, Canadian Nuclear Society, quoted on New Media Journalism website).

That ‘spent fuel’ bundle is so hot (37,000 watts – AECL 1994, NWMO Study ‘Choosing a Way Forward – 2005) that it, together with its compatriots, has to be kept in huge swimming pools, called irradiated fuel bays, for at least 10 years to bring the heat down to 5 watts, at which point it is supposed to be safe to store it above ground in heavy concrete containers.

So this impressive energy contained in the fuel bundle creating all the heat – how much electricity does it actually produce? Figures quoted generally pertain to primary power generation only.

This writer has toured the Bruce Power plant several times, also the huge Waste Management Facility adjacent to the reactors. There are a large number of auxiliary buildings absorbing lots of power, huge pumps sucking the cooling water from the Lake, stand-by power yards, fire fighting equipment – of course computers are running all the functions on site – all these together consume about one third of the electric power generated.

Together with transformer and transmission line losses and with the THERMAL POLLUTION HEAT LOSS, only about 33% of the heat released by that fuel bundle, while in the reactor, reaches the end user as electricity! ("Nuclear Heat", Issue Brief, Union of Concerned Scientists, August 2006).

Talking about efficiency – EFFICIENTLY HEATING UP OUR ENVIRONMENT WITH A HUGE AMOUNT OF WASTE HEAT!

IS NUCLEAR POWER REALLY THE SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING ??

Ziggy Kleinau, Coordinator for non-profit organization Citizens For Renewable Energy(CFRE) has taken part in Environmental Assessment and licensing hearings before the Atomic Energy Control Board(AECB) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission(CNSC) for over 12 years.

Yeow! Ol' Ziggy sed a mouthful. I reckon there's a few things Ginty and his bunch might wanna look into before they mortgage our grandchildrens' futures with their bigass push to spend $40 billion bucks on nuke power.

JimBobby

Nuke Accident Downplayed -- As Usual

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, here we go again. Over in Japan, they had an earthquake an' they had a fire an' leaks at the world's biggest nuclear power plant.

First, the nuke plant operators said there were no leaks. For several hours after they knew they had a problem, they kept their mouths shut.

Then, they said there was a tiny leak that didn't pose any threat.

Then, they said that the leak was 50% bigger than they first said it was but it's still nothin' to worry about, sez they. 325 gallons of radioactive water just got washed in to the ocean. Drop in the bucket, sez they.

Then, they said there was about 100 barrels of low level radioactive waste that fell over and some of the lids come off.

Then, they said it was really 400 and not 100.

Then, the mayor of the city where the nuke plant is shut down the plant indefinitely. He ain't too happy about the way the plant operators kept the public in the dark fer so long. Maybe he ain't too sure they ain't still coverin' up. I know I ain't. Some industry watchers is sayin' it's worse than Three Mile Island.

Here in Nanticoke, Ginty's all gung-ho about buildin' a new nuke plant so's he can shut down the smokin' chuggin' coal-fired generator we got pollutin' the air. I reckon this situation in Japan oughta make ol' Dalton take another look. If he thinks we're ready to accept that sorta risk an' he won't run into a bigass fight, he's dreamin' in radioactive technicolour.

But, we don't have earthquakes in Ontariariario, so we ain't got nothin' to worry about. Right?

Wrong. We do have earthquakes and tremors here in GintyLand and also out in Lake Erie and just across the pond over in Ohio an' Pennsylvania. There's a whole whack o' faults under Lake Erie and in Southwestern Ontariariario. Out on the lake, they got a few gas wells. Some farmers got gas wells on their property 'round here, too. That travels underground in the faults. If there weren't faultlines, there wouldn't be any natural gas down there.

Why does Ginty wanna put Ontarians into the same jeopardy and danger as them poor Japanese?

JimBobby

Nuclear Power is Not the Answer

Whooee! Well friends and foes, I posted up a big comment to yesterday's post and I'm dragging it out for today's post. I got the more easily decipherable James Robert to write most of it. BigCityLib asked me if I was mostly concerned about the way nuclear's being crammed down our throats or if my objections are against nuclear, in general.

Nuclear power is not the answer to global warming.

To replace all of its current oil, gas and coal use, the world would have to build about 80,000 medium-sized reactors. It would take over 200 years to build them even at the rate of one a day, and the cost would be staggering. And common sense tells us that we must not trade one environmental problem for another.(Source)

The projected time frame for nuclear conversion in Nanticoke ranges from 8 - 14 years. Much quicker, cheaper, less-objectionable methods are available. If we put billions into nukes, we take away precious funding that could be used for a better solution.

Nuclear power generation is not emission-free as often claimed by industry advocates and also by Diane Finley --

"...a nuclear facility with its zero emitting technology..."

Minister Finley is getting her information solely from industry advocates. The Sierra Club of Canada informs us that nuclear energy is by no means emmission free.

"Routine emissions from nuclear reactors include a number of different elements such as carbon-14 and tritium. The long half-lives of these radioactive elements (5730 years for carbon-14 and 12.3 years for tritium) allow them to accumulate in the environment and in living tissue. Over the years, leaks around nuclear reactors in Canada have raised levels of tritium, a known carcinogen, well above background levels.

Spent fuel from CANDU reactors contains over 200 deadly radioactive elements - byproducts of the fission process - including uranium, plutonium, cesium, and strontium. Plutonium, for example, has a half-life of 24,400 years. Other waste byproducts have half-lives as long as 710,000 years (uranium235) or 15.8 million years (iodine129). High-level nuclear waste will remain toxic for periods far longer than recorded human history." Sierra Club

What about the increased availability of nuke waste and fuel as contaminants in a dirty bomb or even a "clean" A-bomb?

The connections linking nuclear power and weapons is more than political or historic. Consider: l FISSIONABLE MATERIALS: It is the same nuclear fuel cycle with its mining of uranium, milling, enrichment and fuel fabrication stages which readies the uranium ore for use in reactors, whether these reactors are used to create plutonium for bombs or generate electricity. In the end, both reactors produce the plutonium. The only difference between them is the concentration of the various isotopes used in the fuel. Each year a typical 1000 mega-watt (MW) commercial power reactor will produce 300 to 500 pounds of plutonium -- enough to build between 25 - 40 Nagasaki-sized atomic bombs.

As Dr. Amory Lovins, director of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado points out, "Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power."

2 In order to get plutonium for weapons, one needs a reactor, whether it is a "research" reactor (such as the one which provided India with the fissile material for its first atomic bomb) or a commercial reactor. (Source)

Many countries have phased out or are in the process of phasing out nuclear power generators. They have proven to be too costly, too unreliable, -- several of Ontario's existing reactors are either kaput or awaiting $billion+ repairs -- too dangerous and too unpopular with citizens. I believe there are only 2 reactors being built presently in the entire world - one in Finland and one in Taiwan. These were the first new starts in something like 25-30 years. The industry spends much of its corporate energy attempting to woo governments because without massive subsidies, nuclear cannot be implemented.

Waht about the risk to nearby people and property?

Nuclear installations are, by law, free from financial liability in the case of a nuclear accident. Private property insurance specifically excludes nuclear accidents from all homeowner and farm policies. It is not purchasable at any price. In the event of an accident forcing residents to abandon their property, there is absolutely zero compensation available.

The industry has already been using "temporary" waste storage while it supposedly tries to find permanent solutions. This has been happening since the very first nuke plant went online about 50 years ago. It's an accident waiting to happen.

What about Return on Investment of taxpayer money?

Over a fifty year period (from 1953 to 2002), government subsidies to AECL Atomic Energy of Canada Limited ) totaled $17.5 billion (in 2001 dollars). Cost overruns on the last nuclear station to be built in Ontario at Darlington were in the billions of dollars. Debt incurred by Ontario Hydro (the predecessor to OPG) in the operations of its power reactors amounted to over $35 billion dollars. The public cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors and attempting to contain the waste products over extended timeframes has yet to be determined. Sierra Club

And now, McGuinty is at it again along with the support of MP Finley and presumably the federal government. The financial situation vis-a-vis Canadian investment is typical of the poor ROI experienced by other countries, like the US.

The Nanticoke coal generator is only about 35 years old. If replaced by a nuke plant, the existing plant will be totally demolished. This will cost millions. If we'd known 35 years ago what we know now, it would not have been built. We do know now all the reasons why building a multi-billion dollar nuclear facility is wrong-headed. In 50 years (the industry-projected life span of a new nuke plant), we'll be spending billions to decommission nuke plants.

About 3 years ago, a wind farm proposal came before Norfolk council and was approved. Those 70-80 windmills are already pumping out enough power for tens of thousands of homes. A multi-acre solar farm has just been announced and approved for development. It will come online before the drawings could be completed for a nuclear Nanticoke.

Reduction and energy efficiency are the real answers.

(N)uclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative -- energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion. If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient lightbulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from better responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential. (Source)

Don't forget, that's our money that Ontario is investing. We could be getting seven times better ROI.

James Robert (for JimBobby)

Diane Finley's Plan(?) for a Nuclear Nanticoke

Whooee! Well friends an' foes, there’s a bigass shitstorm brewin’ in my neighbourhood — Nanticoke. Ginty’s all gung-ho on nuke power fer Ontariariario. They’re talkin’ about turnin’ Nanticoke into a nuke plant.

Scotty Tribe is tellin' about a dumbass idea t' bury spent nuke fuel in the Canajun Shield. I gotta wonder if this great idea o’ storin’ radioactive pollution in the Shield ain’t mostly a pre-emptive strike against the anti-nuke argument concernin’ nuclear waste.

Diane Finley’s all gooey over the Nuclear Nanticoke idea. She an’ the MPP an’ the local mayors is all gettin’ the royal ass-kissin’ treatment from the nuke industry lobbyists. Residents is gettin’ one-sided “information” meetings set up by the Chamber of Commerce where there’s the CEO of Bruce (he’s also pres of the Cdn Nuclear Association) as the one an’ only spokesperson/expert. Haldimand County council already passed a resolution welcomin’ a nuke plant. Nanticoke sets just across the Norfolk line in Haldimand.

There's a meetin' in Port Dover on Wednesday an' there's at least gonna be one feller there from Greenpeace. I'll be goin'. I'm hopin' Diane'll be there. I wanna ask Minister Finley about somethin' in her press release --

The next step in the plan to bring the nuclear power investment to Haldimand and Norfolk includes holding information meetings around the two counties.

What plan?

I been hearin' Ginty say nothin's gonna happen without local consent but now I'm hearin' there's a plan t' bring nukes t' Nanticoke. I wanna know who's plan it is an' what are the details an' why ain't we had any say-so in decidin' if there oughta be nuke investment in our county.

It’s sure as hell lookin’ like they’re tryin’ t’ cram a nuclear Nanticoke down our throats.

JimBobby